The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Douglas de Lacey wrote:
ahem a contemporary of mine did a PhD on how concrete sets: I believe
his results had an impact on the industry.

If you want to know how concrete sets, ask a civil engineer. It was
an essential part of my education and training over 30 years ago, and,
I expect, of all civil engineers'.

Heck, even the Romans knew how it worked!
Perhaps, my point was that we don't need to know HOW it works :-)

... but that doesn't answer my criticism of dowsing does it!

As the above shows there *are* explanations of how concret works but
there *aren't* explanations of how dowsing works.

Oh there are, but none of them fit within the current worldview of science.

The standard excuse - i.e. an explanation that doesn't actually make
sense.

--
Chris Green

Tony Polson wrote:

I was a complete sceptic until I tried it. Until then, I believed it
was hokum.

It's total hokum, and here's how you prove it.

Get a friend to bury ten pipes in a piece of ground, and then run water
through one of them, without telling you which one. Then try to use your
magick dowsing techniques to find out which one it is.

Mary Fisher wrote:

Is it worth a bit of your time for $100000?

It wouldn't attract me.

You can't think of a good cause (Cancer Research ? RSPCA ? RSPCC?) that
could use a million bucks ?

I wonder why James Randi (never heard of him) is doing it? What point is
there?

Yes you have heard of him. He was mentioned the last time a silly
dowsing thread came up a few months ago.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

As the above shows there *are* explanations of how concret works but
there *aren't* explanations of how dowsing works.

Oh there are, but none of them fit within the current worldview of science.

In order to provide an explanation of how dowsing works, it is necessary
to study dowsing working.

Since dowsing does not work, and it has never been shown to work, it
isn't possible to provide an explanation for it.

Tony Polson wrote:

I see no need to prove anything to anyone - not you, nor anyone else
on here, nor the man who you claim is offering a huge sum of money.

you can't think of a use for $1m ?

Mary Fisher wrote:

Perhaps I was just lucky.

I don't believe in luck!

Why do people win the lottery then ?

Do you think that people who win the lottery, win it because unknown
forces in the Universe conspired to make it so ?

Mary Fisher wrote:

There isn't. We don't need a scientific explanation for how concrete sets or
why water doesn't run uphill, we accept it.

The reason why we accept that concrete sets without a scientific
explanation is because it can be demonstrated.

Since dowsing cannot be demonstrated, there can be no kind of
explanation, scientific or otherwise. It doesn't work.

the explanation might be
interesting ut isn't essential to the working of the system.

But it doesn't work. That's the point.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:29:09 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I've done it with a thread over a map but I'd like to learn how to do it
with rods.


Dowsing for anything with rods I can just about accept - dowsing for
anything by hanging a thread over a map - well that's just plain nuts.

Mary - do you have faeries at the bottom of your garden?
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

"Mary Fisher" wrote:

If it's a decent thing to do why doesn't the challenger give it straight to
charity and cut out the middle man?


Because he wants to prove a point, I expect.

I expect he will also make sure that there is no chance of him ever
paying out the money, most likely by imposing his own subjective
assessment of what constitutes "proof".

The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

Get a friend to bury ten pipes in a piece of ground, and then run water
through one of them, without telling you which one. Then try to use your
magick dowsing techniques to find out which one it is.

But make sure that the person who chose and connected the pipes isn't
present at the test - that should be supervised by a disinterested and
uninformed third party. It's that step at which many such tests fail.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

Since dowsing does not work, and it has never been shown to work, it
isn't possible to provide an explanation for it.

Can I interest anyone in a thread on fuel magnets?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

I don't believe in luck!

Why do people win the lottery then ?

That's only luck if you're the winner. To everyone else it's just the
same old randomness, just like the week before.

I may have posted this before, but there's bound to be an entry in this
list that fits the bill...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Tony Polson contains these words:

I expect he will also make sure that there is no chance of him ever
paying out the money, most likely by imposing his own subjective
assessment of what constitutes "proof".

I think more likely he'll apply what the scientific community accept as
a fair test. It's quite a well defined concept and not hard to do.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Guy King wrote:

The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

Get a friend to bury ten pipes in a piece of ground, and then run water
through one of them, without telling you which one. Then try to use your
magick dowsing techniques to find out which one it is.

But make sure that the person who chose and connected the pipes isn't
present at the test - that should be supervised by a disinterested and
uninformed third party. It's that step at which many such tests fail.


In my (admittedly limited) experience of dowsing, it would have been
impossible for me to tell whether pipes were empty or full of water.

I found electricity and telephone cables but could not differentiate
between them and water pipes, full or empty. All I knew was that I
had found *something", which we later dug up. In each case the
location was exactly as indicated by the dowsing rods crossing.

I must admit that this thread has re-awakened my interest in dowsing.
I think I might take it up as a hobby.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:

Because he wants to prove a point, I expect.

Everyone who is referred to Randi goes through the same motions (you're
doing it right now) of either claiming the money does exist, that even
if it did exist he wouldn't pay it out, or that such things aren't
provable in "scientific" tests (which really means they aren't provable
at all).

I expect he will also make sure that there is no chance of him ever
paying out the money, most likely by imposing his own subjective
assessment of what constitutes "proof".

Call the man's bluff, then.

[In a way, this is true. Randi essentially agrees to pay out the money
if anyone can demonstrate "supernatural" powers, or anything that
violates the known laws of physics or our understanding of the world. If
dowsing were possible, it would turn our entire understanding of the
world completely upside down and you could throw all physics textbooks
written in the past 500 years in the bin. There is no immediate
likelihood that it will happen though. Not a single person has been able
to actually prove any of the incredible phenomena they claim.. ]

Guy King wrote:
The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

I don't believe in luck!

Why do people win the lottery then ?

That's only luck if you're the winner.

What's that got to do with it ?

Mary said she doesn't believe in luck. Luck is basically the name we
give whenever random events conspire to deliver a favourable outcome.

A lot of dowsing (like in Tony Polson's case) is down to luck. The rest
of it is down to certainty. Once you accept that it *is* possible to win
the lottery, even if that possibility is remote, then surely it is a
reasonable step to believe that is possible for random events to deliver
what appears to be a natural outcome.

Tony Polson wrote:

I found electricity and telephone cables but could not differentiate
between them and water pipes, full or empty. All I knew was that I
had found *something", which we later dug up. In each case the
location was exactly as indicated by the dowsing rods crossing.

It's pretty straightforward to take a guess in an average house where
service cables might be located. Are you sure that you didn't merely
make a lucky guess ?

The crossing of "dowsing rods" is a well-understood phenomenon.

Mary Fisher wrote:

Not any more, alas. I'm based in Somerset.

Ah well ... if I remember I'll look for someone else :-)

Mary, I saw this article and thought of you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5227730.stm

Huge wrote:

On 2006-07-29, Geronimo W. Christ Esq wrote:

[In a way, this is true. Randi essentially agrees to pay out the money
if anyone can demonstrate "supernatural" powers, or anything that
violates the known laws of physics or our understanding of the world. If
dowsing were possible, it would turn our entire understanding of the
world completely upside down and you could throw all physics textbooks
written in the past 500 years in the bin.

Err, this isn't really the case. It has been shown that human brains
are sensitive to magnetic fields. It may be entirely possible that
dowsing using rods or hazel twigs is possible if the brain is sufficiently
sensitive to detect magnetic anomalies caused by the presence of
buried objects.

I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:


I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

Oh no, please. This is not Narnia or Xanth and inanimate objects do
not move themselves!
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I don't think the brain has anything to do with it.

Manifestly not, those without a brain believe that dowsing works.

Tony Polson wrote:

You cannot make them cross.

Why ? What's stopping you ?

They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

Read this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideomotor_effect

"Guy King" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Geronimo W. Christ Esq" contains
these words:

Since dowsing does not work, and it has never been shown to work, it
isn't possible to provide an explanation for it.

Can I interest anyone in a thread on fuel magnets?

Ooh, yes please :-)

er - including what it is and does it work and can you prove it ...

Mary

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
news
"Mary Fisher" wrote:

If it's a decent thing to do why doesn't the challenger give it straight
to
charity and cut out the middle man?


Because he wants to prove a point, I expect.

I expect he will also make sure that there is no chance of him ever
paying out the money, most likely by imposing his own subjective
assessment of what constitutes "proof".

:-)

"Gully Foyle" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:


I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

Oh no, please. This is not Narnia or Xanth and inanimate objects do
not move themselves!

Of course they don't.

There's some force which we can't (at the moment) explain which makes them
move.
--
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

You're not happy?

"Gully Foyle" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:29:09 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I've done it with a thread over a map but I'd like to learn how to do it
with rods.


Dowsing for anything with rods I can just about accept - dowsing for
anything by hanging a thread over a map - well that's just plain nuts.

Mary - do you have faeries at the bottom of your garden?

No idea. I've never witnessed them in any way but that doesn't mean there
aren't any.

We didn't know there was a horse's skull in the garden behind until a digger
revealed it yesterday.

Mary

The message
from Tony Polson contains these words:

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

So why aren't automated dowsing trolleys seen roaming the streets
looking for all the lost services the utility firms keep digging up the
roads in search of?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message t
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Can I interest anyone in a thread on fuel magnets?

Ooh, yes please :-)

er - including what it is and does it work and can you prove it ...

Ah, well, that's where it all goes wrong, innit.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Gully Foyle wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:


I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

Oh no, please. This is not Narnia or Xanth and inanimate objects do
not move themselves!


They do not move themselves. The fact that almost anyone can get
results using metal rods suggests that some form of electromagnetic
force makes the rods cross.

If you, and other sceptics, just tried it, you would soon stop
bleating about how it doesn't work. I was a complete sceptic but gave
it a try because a respected colleague suggested I should. Not only
did it work, but I found it very useful in my job as a civil engineer.

I am degree educated and professionally qualified. I would not
suggest that dowsing works if I did not have personal experience that
proved it does, overcoming my strong scepticism in the process.

Steve Firth wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I don't think the brain has anything to do with it.

Manifestly not, those without a brain believe that dowsing works.


I don't "believe" in it.

I don't care whether you believe in it or not, but it has actually
*worked* for me, making the job of locating underground services on
construction sites immeasurably easier. It is not a question of
belief, it is a simple, effective practical technique that you could
easily perform yourself, but for the fact that your mind is closed.

It doesn't need any "belief" or "faith" to work, otherwise it would
not work for a sceptic like me. All you need is two metal rods.

I don't particularly care *why* it works - what matters is that it
does, although it would of course be interesting to know why.

Huge wrote:

This is completely unbelievable, and if dowsing actually works, completely
untrue. You are crossing the rods, even if unconciously.


Your arrogance and presumption know no bounds, sir.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...



They do not move themselves. The fact that almost anyone can get
results using metal rods suggests that some form of electromagnetic
force makes the rods cross.

If you, and other sceptics, just tried it, you would soon stop
bleating about how it doesn't work. I was a complete sceptic but gave
it a try because a respected colleague suggested I should. Not only
did it work, but I found it very useful in my job as a civil engineer.

I am degree educated and professionally qualified. I would not
suggest that dowsing works if I did not have personal experience that
proved it does, overcoming my strong scepticism in the process.



Have tried it on site with some success, it is not repeatable under the
controlled conditions I tried, therefore unlikely to be due to "some form of
electromagnetic
force". It may indeed in some sense work, but the only thing moving the rods
is you.

Not really sure what being degree educated or professionally qualified has
to do with this, unless you think it adds weight to your opinion.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:09:24 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

I don't care whether you believe in it or not, but it has actually
*worked* for me, making the job of locating underground services on
construction sites immeasurably easier. It is not a question of
belief, it is a simple, effective practical technique that you could
easily perform yourself, but for the fact that your mind is closed.

Every objective test of dowsing shows that it is no better than random
chance [1]. It doesn't work, it has never been proven to work and stares
into crystal ball the odds are that the state of affairs will continue for
ever.

All you have to offer is an anecdote.

[1] If done as you describe by a nobody armed with a pair of metal rods. If
one hires a water diviner they *may* have better luck than a dowser however
they use local knowledge of the lie of the land, the location of aquifers
and simple observation such as popping out early in the morning to see the
water vapour rising as the sun comes up.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:

...
I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

You are kidding, aren't you? Are you saying there are measurable forces at
work work here, that are *not* anything to do with the user holding the
rods? So we could just stick a load of rods in a field, and from the air we
would see the flow of an underground stream where the rods are 'pushed
together' by this force?

If so, then that should be easy enough to test.

Perhaps another test would provide some further evidence: connect the two
rods together at the base, to ensure that no amount of hand movement could
tip them towards each other. That would prove they were pushed together
without any force from the person holding the rods. On the other hand, if
the rods did not move, then I guess the explanation would be that the
connection would be 'short-circuiting' the effect...?

-- JJ

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
Gully Foyle wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:08:43 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:


I don't think the brain has anything to do with it. You just hold the
rods horizontally out in front of you. If they cross, that indicates
something is below the rods.

You cannot make them cross. They just do it themselves. There is no
input from the user, other than to hold the rods so that they can
respond to whatever it is that makes them cross.

Oh no, please. This is not Narnia or Xanth and inanimate objects do
not move themselves!


They do not move themselves. The fact that almost anyone can get
results using metal rods suggests that some form of electromagnetic
force makes the rods cross.

If you, and other sceptics, just tried it, you would soon stop
bleating about how it doesn't work. I was a complete sceptic but gave
it a try because a respected colleague suggested I should. Not only
did it work, but I found it very useful in my job as a civil engineer.

I am degree educated and professionally qualified. I would not
suggest that dowsing works if I did not have personal experience that
proved it does, overcoming my strong scepticism in the process.

So you could devise an experiment that, if successful, would disprove the
'move by some form of electromagnetic force' theory?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:59:39 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

They do not move themselves.

Correct, the person holding them moves them.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:14:54 GMT, Jason wrote:

Perhaps another test would provide some further evidence: connect the two
rods together at the base, to ensure that no amount of hand movement could
tip them towards each other. That would prove they were pushed together
without any force from the person holding the rods. On the other hand, if
the rods did not move, then I guess the explanation would be that the
connection would be 'short-circuiting' the effect...?

FWIW, I've played with metal dowsing rods. A statement that they cannot me
moved by the person holding them is umm, bull****. I could get them to
cross and uncross at will, however even when crossing a known aquifer they
gave no result at all.

As expected in fact.

"none" wrote:

It may indeed in some sense work, but the only thing moving the rods
is you.


Complete and utter nonsense. But thanks for making me laugh!

;-)

"Jason" wrote:

So you could devise an experiment that, if successful, would disprove the
'move by some form of electromagnetic force' theory?


I'm not interested in "proving" anything one way or the other. The
technique worked well for me. It made finding buried services faster
and cheaper than any alternative method, and that is all that matters.

It isn't a panacea; you won't find everything that's underground and
it doesn't tell you what you have found. But it is cheap and quick,
and tells you where to dig, and that makes it invaluable.

Steve Firth wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:59:39 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

They do not move themselves.

Correct, the person holding them moves them.


Where did you learn to talk such complete and utter nonsense?

(Rhetorical question - reply neither needed or sought)